Showing posts with label travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label travel. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Burn the unions

Given the recent (for most—some of us have been enduring this for nearly a year) travel disruptions in London, Simon Jenkins has written as reasonable article on the topic...
Industrial relations lore holds that the right to strike is sacred...
No, it isn't. Or, rather, the right to strike may well sacred: the right not to be sacked when you do so should not be.
Ordinary citizens have no unions to protect them. They can claim no compensation as victims of the deliberate actions of others.
Quite.

The law should be changed, as I have stated previously, to force the Unions to show—in court—that those affected by strikes have direct power to change the conditions being objected to.

In this case, any court of law would show that commuters have no such power. In these cases, the Unions and their members would be directly liable for compensation claims made upon them.

I want to see these Union bosses, and their members, bankrupted. I want to read stories about ASLEF, TSSA and RMT members losing their houses, their families thrown onto the streets; I want Mick Cash to be dragged through the bankruptcy courts to recover the, no doubt, cheap little cuff-links that he wears.

Honestly, nothing is too bad for these bastards—the law should be changed to make them personally liable for their actions, and then we will see who has the power here.

Right now, Theresa May's piss-poor government has done precisely fuck-all. Alright, Theresa—you want to introduce the "shared society", with yet more government interference in our lives? Why don't you address this crucial issue, you dried up old stick, and then we'll talk. OK?

Until then you should shut your horrible, dog's-arse mouth, you illiberal old witch.

Saturday, July 07, 2012

Engineering's cool!

I do have a lot of posts stored up—some inspired by the two weeks I have just spent in the USA, some not—but whilst I attempt to pull my thoughts together, here is a video of a train laying its own track.



So cool! And illustrative of the concept that human creativity is largely untrammelled...

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

A Northern Line extension proposal

Like Blue Eyes, I am in favour of the proposed Northern Line extension, as far as it goes—which is not very far.
For a part of London so near to the centre, it is crazy how inaccessible this area is. If I had to find something critical to say, it would be that the route is not ambitious enough—could it not head further West to join up with somewhere on the District line?

When I replied to the consultation survey, my own suggestion was that the line should extend beyond Battersea and terminate at (the relatively near-by) Clapham Junction which, despite being the busiest rail station in Europe (by number of trains), has no Tube station.

The driver—and, indeed, source of much of the money—seems to be the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station, which looks to be (if it actually happens) a rather exciting development of a sadly neglected landmark.

Let us see how it goes...

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

No shit

Via Dick Puddlecote, I see that someone has woken up to the idea that speed cameras might actually cause accidents.
Eighty-one per cent of respondents to the insurer’s survey admitted to instantly looking at their speedometers, instead of the road, on detecting a speed camera and one in twenty admitted to braking suddenly, risking losing control of their vehicle or a rear-end shunt.

In other news, the Pope is still Catholic and bears do shit in the woods.

And what is the scale of the problem...?
The insurer estimates that at least 28,000 road accidents have been triggered by the cameras since 2001 and nearly one in three motorists questioned said they had witnessed an accident or near miss as a result of other drivers’ erratic behaviour when faced with one of the cameras.

Close to half of motorists surveyed believe the cameras divert attention away from other areas of driving while one in ten claim that speed cameras increase the risk of an accident.

Speed cameras cause accidents by distracting drivers from the road in front of them and causing them to drive erratically.

This is far more likely to cause an accident than travelling at 45mph in a 40mph area.

In other news, water is—apparently—wet...

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Selling off Network Rail

It seems that the government are considering selling off Network Rail—which would be... er... courageous.
In its bid to cut our £155bn deficit, George Osborne's Treasury crew are polishing up the same list of asset sales that the previous lot failed to get shot of – Royal Mail, NATS, Dartford Crossing, the High Speed 1 rail line and the ever-galloping Tote. But there's one business that could fetch as much as them combined: Network Rail.

Selling the owner of Britain's tracks, signals and stations would take political balls. But this is a time for bold decisions. And the numbers are compelling. Network Rail's equity could be worth as much as £14bn, while its debts would be removed from the public books.

The trouble is, of course, that we saw what happened last time—and it was recently enough that most people remember it. Anda although the article points out that Network Rail is in a far better position than Railtrack was, there is still one crucial element missing.
You could argue that it would be better still to have a vertically integrated railway, with the same owner for both the trains and the track. That could then be carved up as, say, four big regional companies and privatised—similar to the model in Japan.

And, of course, similar to the model that our own railways had in the hey-day of British rail travel. In WWI, the railways came under direct government control, and the exigencies of war meant that the railways were increasingly difficult to run. In 1923, the government formed the companies into "The Big Four"—the Great Western Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and the Southern Railway companies. In 1947—after the government had screwed the private railway companies throughout WWII—the Labour government nationalised the struggling private companies to form British Rail.

As with every other utility the state has ever run, successive governments withheld investment, and destroyed the service. I have, for instance, written before about the utter, colossal failure that was the Beeching Axe.

But, if the government wants to privatise the railways and do it properly, then they could do worse than hire Longrider—a man who has worked at the sharp end and has a superb understanding of the problems—to lead the effort.
If Osbourne is going down the route of proper privatisation, then a vertical split is the way to go. A company that operates the signalling and track on which its trains operate has a unique incentive to make it operate properly. During the previous privatisation, relationships between signallers, traincrew and trackworkers soured overnight as they became competitors with different company loyalties rather than colleagues. It has taken a decade and a half to restore them. And, importantly, we could lose all the silly delay attribution and buying of paths necessary before a signaller can move an out of place on-track machine to its depot. And, you never know, maybe signallers can go back to regulating using common sense rather than abide by arbitrary regulation polices that are out of touch with the situation on the ground.

Quite.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Pensioned off

With reference to my earlier post about British Airways, John Band has an excellent post up pointing out that all is not quite as it seems in that company—especially as regards the assets.
BA’s enterprise value – the amount that its assets plus goodwill are worth, before taking into account its financial liabilities – is something like GBP7bn. The reason its market cap is only GBP3bn is because it also has a GBP4bn pension deficit. In other words, money that BA owes to its workers and former workers accounts for more than half of the company’s total value.

This has two policy implications.

One is that Red Tory Philip Blond’s suggestion that the government should mutualise BA isn’t quite as insane as it looks – more than half the company is already owned by the workers, and if things were to get worse then the pension fund has priority over the shareholders as a creditor. A deal like the one the US government brokered for GM, leaving the workers as majority shareholders, isn’t totally implausible.

The other consequence of this ownership pattern is something which should make BA shareholders rather nervous.

If the industrial action were to turn into a major, long-term dispute that drove down passenger numbers and revenues to such a severe extent that BA had to go into administration, then the pension fund would have priority over BA’s assets (including not only its physical assets, but also its brands, goodwill, systems, etc). It’d be hard work to rebuild BA as a global brand after that kind of collapse, but it wouldn’t be impossible – particularly with worker ownership ending the company’s labour crisis overnight. The shareholders, however, would lose everything.

It really is worth reading the whole thing, but the main point is: don't buy shares in BA.

The other point is that—if BA is mutualised—then we are going to see just how good the workers are at running a massive, international, multi-billion pound business. My personal opinion is that it will hurtle down the toilet at a phenomenal speed.

Now, it may be that the workers are thinking along the same lines as John Band—but I'll bet that they aren't. Apart from anything else, workers tend to have a very high opinion of how much better they'd be at running things than they actually are.

Running a company is not an easy thing. I am part of the management of a small web software company employing under twenty people, and trying to ensure that everything runs smoothly is not an easy task—and my main job really only entails running the actual day-to-day software development side of it.

Do we think that BA cabin crew—who are unwilling to lose perks when their company is currently losing nearly £1.5 million per day—are going to be any better when this multi-billion pound company is "theirs"? No.

Because many workers—like those spending government money—have a real problem with understanding that companies (even ones the size of BA) don't just have magic money floating around.

Let me give you an example from a company I worked in once: on hearing the news that said company had won a major contract, one of the designers turned to the sales manager and said, "so? I won't see any of it."

To which the sales manager replied, with remarkable restraint, "what the hell do you think pays your salary?" The designer hadn't even thought about it: he just assumed that his wages appeared in his bank account... Well, actually, I don't know how he thought it got there—by magic presumably.

Anyway, should BA go into administration and be mutualised, the pension obligations wouldn't end—because this isn't just the pensions of current workers, but those who have retired and are busy living off said pensions. All that would happen is that a mutualised BA would have less credit and still have a £4 billion pension fund hole.

And no one in their right mind would want to go and manage a company made up of workers who were willing to bankrupt said company rather than accept that they were going to have to accept some cuts; similarly, no one is going to lend money to that company and, most certainly, no one is going to buy the shares of said company.

Even were BA to be mutualised, it would go bust long before the oil runs out...

Friday, May 21, 2010

Flying by the seat of their pants

Last year, British Airways were losing over £1 million per day: surely they could do better this year? Er—define better...
British Airways has reported its biggest annual loss due to lower passenger numbers, higher costs and the impact of strike action.

The flag carrier lost £531m ($766m) in the 12 months to March - BA's biggest loss since it was privatised in 1987.

That adds to the £401m it lost in the 2008-9 financial year, but as it was less than expected, BA shares rose.

Do bear in mind, however, that this does not include losses from the volcanic ash cloud—which could push BA even further into the red.
The results come as BA faces 15 more days of strike action by cabin crew, due to begin on Monday.

I cannot articulate how bloody stupid I think that Unite's leaders are—Tony Woodley and his merry crew are going to bankrupt BA. Many thousands of people—most of whom are not members of a union—will find themselves in the dole queue.

And what will happen to Woodley's precious union members then...?

Oh, wait: that's right—they will get massive redundancy pay-outs, courtesy of the British taxpayer.

I really hate the bloody Unions.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

The Big Questions #1

As some may know, I was on The Big Questions this morning, a sort of populist Sunday morning talkshow. In essence, I was asked to debate the question "should we lower the drink-driving limit from 80mgs to 50mgs"—and to defend the status quo. I'm going to cover the experience in a few posts, for clarity, but there are a few general comments that I'd make...

First, I was incredibly nervous when it came to it. I am not usually so on-edge when doing speaking gigs; but usually I have a reasonable billing (and thus reasonable time to get a nuanced point across). Another factor was that I knew that I was being asked to defend a position that was potentially very emotive—and, sure enough, they wheeled on some couple whose son had been killed in a drink-driving accident (of which more later).

Second, although I had made extensive notes and had, I believed, a well-structured argument, this was thrown out slightly by that fact that, when the section finally came up, they had changed the question to "should we ban any drinking before driving"? Although I had anticipated this as a counter-argument to some of the points that I might raise, I had not expected to have to kick off defending that position.

Third—and this is what this post will deal with—I was ambushed by figures that I had, quite simply, never heard before. These came, most specifically, from Dr Valerie [someone or other] from the British Medical Association.

The first claim that she made was that, with 80mgs in the blood, reaction time was impaired by 12%. Sensibly, I should have asked "so what is the average reaction time, in milliseconds?" because, when I asked her afterwards, she had absolutely no idea. She waffled about lots of extenuating circumstances, blah, blah, which would probably have satisfied the audience—but her not having the figures would have put her on the back foot—as would the audience understanding that 12% of, say, 10 milliseconds is utterly insignificant.

However, the most important claim that she made was that the risk of being involved in an accident with 80mgs of alcohol in your blood (the current limit) was ten times that of someone with none.

I have found out since that this was, quite simply, a lie.

Again, talking to her afterwards, I challenged her assertion and asked her where she had got her data. Valerie had not, in fact, got the data herself (her researcher had) but the graph that she showed me was this one—and seen exactly as below.



On production of this artifact, the conversation went something like this...

"This came from the World Health Organisation. And... Well, I don't have another graph but I know that this has been replicated all over the place." She stabbed at the graph's y-axis saying, "see, there's 20.00."

"Yes," said I. "But that point at 0.8 is nowhere near ten times the likelihood of crashing."

Having noted some of the details, I have tracked down the WHO paper that it came from—the WHO Drinking And Driving, A Road Safety Manual For Decision-makers And Practitioners. Oh yes? Those discredited IPCC synthesis reports are always described as "for decision-makers"—it usually means that they are rather more political documents than nuanced science.

Anyway, you can find the graph that she was referring to in the section entitled Chapter 1: Why is a drinking and driving programme necessary [PDF, 397kb] which is not a title that fills me with the confidence that this is going to be, in any way, unbiased. For those who cannot be bothered to download the damn thing, here's how the graph appears in situ.



The first thing to understand is that this is a relative crash risk: if you drink no alcohol at all, the risk of crashing is, quite obviously, not zero—otherwise alcohol would be a factor in 100% of road crashes, rather than the 6% (2008) that it actually is.

The second point is that this is the outcome of a number of studies, starting with one in Michigan, US, in 1964, but is the one featured in the most recent of those, from 2002.
In 196 a case-control study was carried out in Michigan in the United States known as the Grand Rapids study (15). It showed that drivers who had consumed alcohol had a much higher risk of involvement in crashes than those with a zero BAC, and that this risk increased rapidly with increasing blood alcohol levels. These results were corroborated and improved upon by studies in the 1980s, 1990s and in 2002 (16–18). These studies provided the basis for setting legal blood alcohol limits and breath content limits in many countries around the world.

The real point to note is the second paragraph of the accompanying explanation... [Emphasis mine.]
The studies found that the relative risk of crash involvement starts to increase significantly at a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.0 g/dl and that at 0.10 g/100 ml the crash risk relative to a zero BAC is approximately 5, while at a BAC of 0.2 g/100 ml the crash risk is more than 1 0 times the risk relative to a zero BAC (see Figure 1.2).

In other words, at 100mgs, the risk of crashing is five times higher than at baseline. Valerie from the BMA was claiming an increase of ten times at 80mgs—which is, to say the least, a little creative.

Or, as I like to call it, a lie.

One of the things that we would obviously like to know is, roughly, what is the baseline? Presumably it is not zero, because five, or even ten, times zero is zero. So, in actual percentages, what is your average chance of crashing when you are sober? If you get in your car and drive somewhere, what is the chance that you will have an accident?

I have had an inordinate amount of trouble trying to quantify this: if I could even find an estimate for the number of road journeys made every year, that would help. If anyone knows where to find such figures, please, let me know.

Otherwise, I shall proceed to try to piece the bits together in my next post...

Friday, April 02, 2010

Struck off

I see that Bob Crow and his merry men have been forced to cancel their rail strike because of dodgy balloting.
A High Court judge rescued the travel plans of millions of Easter holidaymakers and commuters returning to work next week by granting an emergency injunction against a national rail strike that threatened to halt 80 per cent of trains.

Superficially, there's only one thing that I can add to this news...

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ahahahahahaha...

There is, unfortunately, a downside to this news.
Mrs Justice Sharp also spared the Prime Minister untold political damage by halting the four-day strike, which was to begin on Tuesday — the day on which Gordon Brown is expected to call a general election.

Bugger.

Oh well: at least one can say that—strike or no strike—Gordon Brown is still an absolute cunt.

And so is Bob Crow.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Some more good news

In amongst all of the fun that is the destruction of the CRU's credibility, there have been some other frabjous stories this week—even so, how could I not have covered the fact that Harpy Harperson is to be prosecuted for her little prang?
Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman is to be prosecuted over a minor car accident near her south London constituency in July.

She faces prosecution for allegedly driving without due care and attention and driving while using a mobile phone.

The Crown Prosecution Service has said there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute.

A spokeswoman for Ms Harman said she "strongly refutes the allegations and will deny the charges".

Of course she is—absolutely innocent. Still, Harpy was kind enough to tell all of the witnesses who she was.

Iain Dale speculates whether Harridan Harperson would have to resign if convicted; the real highlight of his post is this featured Tweet from BevaniteEllie.
@iaindale no @harrietharman will not resign over a driving incident,she has work 2 do 2 achieve equality in this country.Sorry 2 disappoint

This is just priceless! And in the same week that BevaiteEllie successfully campaigned for a video to be used as a Labour political party broadcast—a video full of factual inaccuracies and utter cant that has been neatly ripped apart by Sara Bedford and eviscerated by Tory Bear.

It rally has been an excellent week...

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Privatise the railways

Constantly Furious is absolutely fucking raging about the fact that many people were prevented from getting to Remembrance Services because First Capital Connect's drivers decided not to turn up for work this Sunday in "a dispute over pay".

The Unions are really starting to flex their muscles at the moment, and we are being reminded just what a bunch of cunts they are. Of course, people like myself couldn't give a shit about Royal Mail staff striking—which is why, I suspect, the CWU have come to an arrangement—and, now that I have a car, I don't take the train very often; similarly, the fact that BA staff are being balloted doesn't bother me one jot.

However, it is worth noticing that all three of the businesses cited above have something in common: they all used to be state-owned monopolies. And, actually, all but BA still are.

"What?" I hear you cry. "But the railways were privatised years ago!"

Um, no...

The railways are not run, in any meaningful sense, by private companies. Consider the evidence, m'lud:
  1. The tracks are not run by private companies; they are maintained by a state monopoly called Network Rail. Yes, yes: technically it doesn't appear on the government's books, but it's £19 billion or so of debt is under-written by the state and the vast majority of its income is also derived from the state.

  2. As regards the running of the train services, the government controls the franchises.
    • These franchises are made so short-term that—given the capital cost involved in so doing—there is little incentive for the private companies to invest.

    • A company can lose the franchise just like that if the government so wishes—and it often does, e.g. Connex South Eastern, National Express East Coast.

    • The private companies must pay a guaranteed amount of money to the government in order to run these franchises regardless of earnings, e.g. GNER (although one cannot ignore the fact that GNER negotiated spectacularly badly, such that they were about the only rail company paying a nett amount to the state. Which brings us on to...).

  3. The state pays out a massive subsidy—currently sitting at about twice what it was under British Rail—to rail companies to operate these services. Of course, you might look at the whole thing a little differently if—instead of calling it "a subsidy"—you use the word "fees".

  4. Of course, many of these subsidies are necessary because the state also broadly controls:
    • the train timetables: the companies involved cannot decide to axe or reduce the frequency of many services. (Remember that the biggest destruction of the rail services was carried out by the state.)

    • the price of tickets: the state sets maximum pricing, and many of the conditions pertaining to those prices (as the state has done almost since the railways' inception, by designating them a Common Carrier).

    • the relative priority of passenger and freight services.

    • the rental prices of the lines, through Network Rail.

    • The terms of employment (and many other conditions) by insisting that the companies that are picked for the franchises recognise unions, etc.

This is not to say that the private companies do not exploit the Simple Shopper—I am sure that they do. It is also not to say that, were the railways properly privatised that they would, in fact, be any better than they are now. (Indeed, since the railways are, like the banks, "too big to fail" they might be worse.)

All I am pointing out is that the railways, right now, are not privatised. What the Tory government did was precisely what Gordon and his merry men have done with schools, hospitals and many other public services: they have entered into a public-private partnership in order to run these services.

The idea is that the private sector puts capital into the services, and the government pays them a massive fee for running those services. The fee has to be pretty massive because private companies cannot borrow at the same favourable rates that the state can: however, the state gets to keep the capital investment off the Treasury's books since the fees count as expenditure rather than capital investment (the reasons why the state would want to do this would make up a whole other post).

And that's all I wanted to point out: that the railways are not privatised. But maybe, just maybe, we might look at whether proper privatisation could work.

But it would have to be proper privatisation—without the constant and crippling interference and condition-setting, occasional nationalisation (e.g. WWI) or commandeering (e.g. WWII) or the companies and network that the state has indulged in almost since the very inception of the rail industry.

Just a thought...

Monday, October 26, 2009

The Tories and immigration

Yes, I know that I have been banging on about this a lot recently but, as is often the case in the blogosphere, a whole set of circumstances has come together in order to create one or two topical... er... topics. Next week it'll probably be carrot cakes or, given my past form, climate change or political corruption.

Anyway, presumably in the light of the recent Question Time appearance of the BNP's Nick Griffin, John Redwood has felt it necessary to restate Conservative immigration policy, as laid out by Damien Green.

As usual, the policy entirely ignores the mass immigration from the EU—which, of course, the Conservatives have absolutely no power to affect—in favour of disproportionately punishing those from non-EU countries, many of which share rather stronger legal, linguistic and cultural bonds with the British people than the EU countries.

Green also repeats the ridiculous canard that immigrants somehow intrinsically put a strain on our public services and general resources.
Controlling legal migration

First, we plan to introduce an explicit annual limit on the numbers of non-EU economic migrants. This means that there should be an annual limit on the numbers allowed to come here to work from outside the European Union, taking into consideration the effects a rising population has on our public services, transport infrastructure and local communities.

What no one seems to appreciate is that whilst non-EU immigrants have to pay the full amount of tax and NICs, they have extremely limited access to public services. Indeed, non-EU immigrants are not allowed to claim benefits at all (and, incidentally, nor are their spouses).

By contrast, EU immigrants have an automatic right of settlement and are entitled to any and all benefits available to the native population.

Regardless of what I might personally feel about this issue, a failure to deal with the unfettered immigration from the EU will fail to address the issues which politicians claim to care about.

Because, totally unlike the BNP, the Conservatives are not objecting to immigrants because they are diluting the British culture—oh no, definitely not. I would like to make it absolutely clear that Britain's mainstream parties are definitely not like the BNP and are definitely not racist in any way at all.

However, if our politicos are worried about the strain on public services, then they need to worry about those who can use said services—and, incidentally, settle indefinitely in Britain—without having paid a penny into the economy of this country. Which means that they need to address the issue of EU immigrants, not non-EU immigrants.

(Of course, it would help if the money that was supposed to go to public services actually went to those frontline services, rather than being pissed away on legions of bureaucrats.)

But hist! Here is the Tory plan for dealing with this...
A further step we can take to control immigration directly is the imposition of transitional controls for new EU entrants. They should be applied here as they are in other countries.

Ahem. Now, I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the EU will let you impose these controls retrospectively, boys. You may be able to impose temporary controls on, say, Turkish immigrants upon the accession of that country to the EU, but I don't think that you can stop or limit anyone from the current 27 EU members.
As well as having a better controlled immigration system we badly need welfare reform and improved skills training so that we are not simply ignoring millions of British workers, which is why Conservatives have launched a plan to Get Britain Working. We need to do better in making British workers competitive.

Yes, well done. Marginal deduction rates for those on benefits, for instance, are a fucking scandal. And so your plan for Welfare reform is...? Hello? Anyone? Bueller...?
Preventing illegal migration

To reduce the amount of illegal immigration, Conservatives will ensure our borders are properly policed.

Brilliant. And how, exactly, are you going to do this...? And answer came there none.

Look, it may well be that the Conservatives have a secret plan to deal with all of the problems highlighted. The trouble is that I severely doubt it.

I predict that a Conservative government will, quite unjustly, continue to dole out a fucking inhumane kicking to those highly-skilled, hard-working, tax-paying migrants (whose access to the public purse is, in any case, severely restricted) whilst simultaneously ignoring the elephant in the room that is free immigration from the EU.

As a result, the Tories will not achieve any of their stated aims. They will, however, cause misery to thousands of people through a policy that is driven by political expediency and spite.

P.S. Your humble Devil posted his solution to the problem a few weeks ago.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Barking

Via Timmy, I see that M'Lord Mandelson is interfering in a car company.
In a move that reflects the deep concerns within Government about the threat to UK jobs and the viability of Magna's plans, the Business Secretary hired PwC to scrutinise the arrangements separately from a German study.

PwC, one of the "big four" accountancy firms, is believed to have confirmed Lord Mandelson's fears that Magna's restructuring proposals for General Motors Europe are not the most commercially viable and that a buyer taking a fresh look at the business would pursue a different approach.

So, the NuLabour government—having examined an offer to buy an ailing car company—now believes that someone, anyone, else would be better for the great British worker and the once-great British economy.

You know, there's something really familiar about this situation and I just can't think what it is...

Sunday, October 04, 2009

... and quite another for them.... #2

I'll bet Harriet didn't expect to see these gentlemen again quite so soon...

Is Harriet Harman one of the most repulsive people in the world? I mean, one can survey the various turds, shits, pigs, arseholes, backstabbers, shysters, spivs and charlatans in our Parliament and say, with simple honesty, that she is one of the very worst people in that den of thieves, whores and fuckwits. And given that, I think that one can say with confidence that Harriet Harman is, indeed, one of the most unpleasant human beings on the planet.

And so it is with undisguised glee that I report, seen at Guido's place, that darling Harriet has been a naughty girl.
Harriet Harman is being investigated by police after allegedly leaving the scene of an accident in which she drove into a parked car while talking on her mobile phone.

Ms Harman, Labour's deputy leader, is said to have stopped briefly after the crash, but witnesses say she drove off without leaving her insurance or registration details—an offence carrying a possible six-month jail term.

When a witness approached her car, the MP is said to have wound down her window and said simply: 'I'm Harriet Harman—you know where you can get hold of me.'

According to police sources, Ms Harman is being investigated for driving without due care and attention, driving while illegally using a mobile phone and failing to stop after an accident, the most serious of the three offences.

Like Baroness Scotland, Harriet Harman is also a lawyer by profession and has held senior legal positions in the government.

It was her government that introduced the ban on driving with a mobile phone.

It was her government that tightened up the law on careless driving—a measure that was, ironically, driven through by Baroness Scotland—who had a conviction for careless driving—whilst she was at the Home Office.
Under the 1988 Road Traffic Act, any driver involved in a collision with another vehicle is required by law to stop and give their name and address, as well as details of the vehicle's owner and the vehicle's registration.

Any driver who does not give their details at the time must then report the accident to the police.

A senior police source said: 'Ms Harman was due to be questioned by officers last week but because of the Labour Party conference, it is believed they have delayed speaking with her until later this week.

'The police were contacted by concerned members of the public who had witnessed the accident and the behaviour of Ms Harman who they said drove off without leaving her details.

'She is now being investigated for driving away from an accident because it appears that she did not comply with the law which requires her to leave her name and address or her insurance details with the owner of the damaged vehicle.

'If prosecuted and convicted for failing to stop after accident she could face up to six months' imprisonment - it is highly unlikely that a prison sentence would follow...

No shit, Sherlock. A prison sentence for someone as august as Harridan Harperson? Never. The prison sanction is only there to be used on the little people.
... but the fact that this kind of punishment is in place for this offence shows the seriousness with which the courts take it.'

The police source says that officers from Dulwich attended the scene and spoke to a number of witnesses.

A report was then passed to the London Traffic Unit's division in Sidcup, which is responsible for processing motoring offences in Ms Harman's area.

The police source added: 'After the police have interviewed Ms Harman, a case file will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service and a decision made on whether to prosecute.

What do you want to bet that the decision will be not to prosecute and that this will never come near a court...?
'If prosecuted, she would be summonsed to appear in court.

'When questioned by the police Ms Harman will not necessarily be arrested but instead she will have to sign a police document in which she must state that she is telling the truth.

'In common terms it is the traffic equivalent of being questioned under caution for a criminal matter.'

Careless driving is punishable by a fine of up to £2,500 and between three and nine penalty points. Courts may consider disqualification in some cases. Drivers caught using a mobile phone receive an automatic three points and a fixed £60 fine.

Your humble Devil is pretty sure that it won't happen—I have no faith in the incorruptibility of the police, the courts or the CPS—but wouldn't it be wonderful to see this disgusting bitch being metaphorically fucked up the arse in court?

Mind you, she would probably whinge about how the judge was a misogynist and start trying to enact yet more inequality laws left, right and centre.

Mind you, this repulsive horse-faced cow does have some previous...
In 2003, Ms Harman was fined £400 and banned from driving for a week after being convicted of driving at 99mph on a motorway.

In April 2007 she was also issued with a £60 fixed-penalty notice and three penalty points for driving at 50mph in a 40mph zone on the A14 in Suffolk.

She paid the fine several months late, narrowly avoiding appearing at Ipswich magistrates' court.

And her excuse for this late payment...?
A Labour Party source said at the time: 'She made an innocent mistake. She forgot to pay on time because she was spending all her time on the deputy leadership contest touring the country.'

Ah, it's basically the old "I'm far too important to worry about such things. Paying fines on time is for the proles."

Of all the people on this rather super planet of ours, Harriet Harman is one of those that I most loathe. Seriously, if I could cast her as any character in any film, she would be Carter Burke in Aliens.

And I hope that the legal process "nails her right to the wall for this ... Right to the wall"...

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Railroad to nowhere

Kerry McCarthy is very happy, it seems...
According to the BBC—and who are we to doubt them?—the Government is going to announce the electrification of the Great Western line later today. Those who hang on to my every word in Parliament and on this blog—and if not, why not?—will know I've been calling for this for some time. Last time I asked Geoff Hoon about this in the Chamber, I thought he'd been distinctly encouraging, but it's good to have confirmation. The only downside is that it will take eight years in total, but still at least it's been given the green light. Or should that be the green signal?

Actually, the eight years to completion is very far from being the only downside.

According to the BBC article, electrification carries significant benefits.
A £1bn plan to electrify the main rail route between London and Swansea has been announced by the government.

A second line between Liverpool and Manchester will also be converted from diesel to electric.

Ministers say electric trains are lighter and more energy efficient, cutting the running cost and environmental impact of train services.

OK, so these are all benefits to the train operator, right? It will make the train services cheaper to run, yes?

So why the fuck is the taxpayer footing the £1 billion bill?
Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said: "Yet again Labour are maxing out Network Rail's credit card, leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill."

Good point.
Transport Secretary Lord Adonis told the BBC the massive investment involved would be worth it.

"With the electric trains you get a quieter, cleaner, more reliable and much cheaper train which benefits passengers and it also benefits the taxpayers because it's much cheaper to keep an electric railway going," he said.

Good, that's excellent. So we'll be seeing a corresponding drop in the massive taxpayer subsidy to the train operator, will we? If the taxpayer is stumping up £1 billion to electrify the line for which all of the benefits will accrue to the train operator, then we will, presumably, be cutting their subsidy, will we?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller...?

Monday, May 04, 2009

Speed cameras

The Telegraph has a view on speed cameras that I have to agree with.
For decades, this country has had some of the safest roads in the world. Ministers argue that festooning our highways with speed cameras makes them even safer. The evidence suggests otherwise. While we have installed more speed cameras than anywhere else in Europe, the decline in road deaths in Britain has actually been less marked than in other, less camera-obsessed countries.

This should come as no surprise: speed cameras, for all the protestations of the Government and police, have always had more to do with revenue generation than with road safety. Official figures show that excessive speed is a factor in just six per cent of accidents. How many cameras are usefully sited near schools and in residential areas – where they really would aid road safety – compared with the number on open roads, where motorists are tempted to drive quickly because it is safe to do so? Very few.

The suspicion that drivers are being hounded with an assiduity that is not brought to the pursuit of burglars, muggers or hooligans has helped diminish respect for the police in the eyes of the law-abiding majority. That is a high price to pay for this money-grubbing policy.

As a driver, I really think that speed cameras are actively dangerous. Why? Simply because you end up watching your speedometer, rather than the road ahead*. Not to mention the inevitable braking at the speed camera's start point (even people who are travelling at, or below, the speed limit almost always brake) that can easily lead to a shunt (especially if you are looking at your speedo rather than... Well, you get the idea).

Your humble Devil got caught speeding a couple of weeks ago by some coppers with a camera (that reminds me, I must pay the £60 fine. Bah) and, yes, I was speeding. I was going faster than the 50mph speed limit but on a six-lane carriageway with good visibility all around. The policeman was unimpressed when I pointed out that I prefer to watch the road, rather than the speedo.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Piss off

Can someone tell me why some cunt from the TPA has asked me to join a group on Facebook protesting about the fact that some place somewhere is asking motorcyclists to pay for parking?

Fuck them: car owners have to pay for parking—why should motorcyclists not do the same? I'm sorry, but can anyone tell me why motorcyclists should not pay for parking—is it the case that motorcycles magically disappear, not taking up any space, when they are parked?

So, no, I absolutely believe that motorcyclists should pay for parking; especially cunting moped-riders: they should be made to pay through the nose in return for all of the fucking trouble they cause on the roads.

The only road-users that I loathe more than fucking overtake-and-bugger-whether-the-opposite-lane-is-clear, overtaking-on-the-inside-is-just-dandy motorcyclists are fucking traffic-lights-don't-apply-to-me, weaving-between-cars-in-a-dangerous-manner-is-fine pedal-cyclists.

I keep seeing and hearing government-sponsored adverts about how "two motorcyclists a week are killed or seriously injured": anyone who drives a car could tell you why—because the stupid cunts do not follow the rules of the road.

Pretty much all of them are cocks and deserve all that they get. The only thing that worries me is that car owners are almost always blamed and that they feel in some way guilty for causing accidents.

I'm thinking of attaching scythes to my wheels in order to kill more of the two-wheeled cunts...

Sunday, March 08, 2009

A fresh attack on drivers

And whilst our economy crashes around us and the government carries on bankrupting the country, the state has unveiled a fresh bit of interference.
THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.

The reduction , to be imposed as early as next year, will affect two thirds of the country’s road network. Drivers will still be able to reach 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways and 60mph on the safest A roads.

Oh for fuck's sake...

As The Englishman points out, this is the government believing that they know better than I do about how to drive.
Yes, you statist bastard I do think it is "a further attack and a restriction on people’s freedom", the problem is specific drivers driving dangerously in specific places. But your answer is a blanket ban on everyone everywhere enforced by surveillance technology which will alienate large numbers of ordinary people, because you don't trust ordinary people to make any decision. You think that sitting in Whitehall you know better than I do what the appropriate speed is for the road in front of my eyes is.

Those on the public payroll are happy to dawdle around, but those actually trying to earn their living need to get a move on. Are you actually trying to provoke the middle classes to riot, because if they do I hope your scrawny neck gets to have a set of jump leads wrapped around it.

Yes. And yes, they are trying to provoke the middle classes to riot...
Jim Fitzpatrick, the roads minister, defended the plan, which will be the most dramatic cut since 1978, when the national speed limit was reduced from 70mph to 60mph.

“There will be some in the driving lobby who think this is a further attack and a restriction on people’s freedom,” he said.

It is, you hideous cunt: of course it is. And these average speed cameras are fucking disgusting: how dare you attempt to monitor my every mile driven?
“But when you compare that to the fact we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads, it would be irresponsible not to do something about it. I’m sure that the vast majority of motorists would support the proposals.”

Really? In that case, Jim, why don't you have a referendum on it? Or, at the very least, why not put it in your manifesto for the next election, eh?

Because you know very well that the "vast majority of motorists" would not support these proprosals, you lying bastard.
Fitzpatrick said: “If you look at the figures on rural roads, there are disproportionately more people dying there than on any other roads. The nature of some rural roads, with dips and bends and difficult conditions, means that the 60mph limit is not enough.”

Look, you disgusting little shit, I know that you are used to being driven around by a fucking chauffeur at our expense, but what happens when normal people drive on a road that is too winding for 60mph is to fucking well slow the fuck down.

Why do we do this? Because we do not want to be involved in an accident because we might be killed, or total our car. Do you see, you fucking twat?
The 50mph proposal will be laid out in a consultation document to be published in the early summer.

Oh, right. Yes, I think that we know what kind fucking consultation document that will be, don't we? Yes, it will be like the recent smoking one, highlighted by my colleague, in which the opinions of those who oppose the proposals will disappear into thin air whilst the responses that will count will be those of fake charities—such as Brake (£70,991 from taxpayers) and Living Streets (67% state-funded)—who support the government proposals.

When will the revolution come? And perhaps we should storm Westminster: after all, the government will find it difficult to enact the Civil Contingencies Act if they are swinging from lamp-posts...

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Slight rest

Your humble Devil must apologise for the silence, but I appear to be suffering from a bout of blog fatigue, induced by watching the calamitous collapse of the economy and our civil rights. What is the fucking point?

Still, even with all of that, I do feel the need to point out a few things of interest. First up, via Obnoxio, what the fucking, fucking, cunting fuck is this fucking shit?
Foreign drivers will have to pay on-the-spot fines of up to £900 for flouting traffic laws under new legislation to be introduced next month.

If they do not have enough cash or a working credit card their vehicles will be clamped until they pay — and they will face an additional £80 release fee.

What the fuck? Nine hundred fucking quid? Has anyone normal got £900 kicking around spare in their bank account? Or on their credit card, for that matter?

After all, the only credit card that I have ever possessed had a maximum limit of a gigantic £300—a third of what one of these cunts would fine me. Isn't there some law about fining people beyond their ability to pay? I'm sure there is.

But it's OK, because it's only those filthy foreigners, isn't it?
The law will also apply to British residents who cannot prove at the roadside that they have a valid address in Britain.

Oh. That's just fucking great.

And what kind of document would you have to show to prove your address, I wonder? An official ID Card, perhaps? Yes, that might do it. But we were told that we wouldn't have to carry them on us at all times: after all, we don't have to carry our driving licence. (And tell me, since MPs have just voted to conceal their constituency addresses, will they be exempt from this law? You betcha!)

There is a reason that any policeman will give you a certain amount of time to present your driving licence after an incident—because it is incredibly silly to carry your fucking licence (or your passport or any other secure document) around with you. And yet now you are going to have to because otherwise these shitstains might clamp your car if you cannot produce such a document there and then. What the fuck?

Oh, wait! I know: they cannot do this because the principle that you cannot be fined without court representation—as enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, I believe—was upheld. They can't do this.

Oh, but... That was the case with parking fines and they simply called them "administration charges" instead. So...
The fines will be described officially as “deposits” when introduced on April 1 because the money would be refunded if the driver went to court and was found not guilty.

Well, fuck me ragged: isn't that a surprise?
The AA said that the new law was long overdue because British drivers had been paying on-the-spot fines on the Continent for many years.

The AA should shut its fucking face. Seriously, we used to laugh at the fascist rules that the Continentals had to endure (when we weren't actively fighting the rulers), not sodding well emulate them.

OK, fuck this: I was going to have a rest but I'm absolutely fucking pissed off now...

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Tornado

Your humble Devil has always loved trains—yes, when very young, I did want to be a train driver—and nothing really beats the smell and the grandeur of the steam engines.

So, as you might imagine, I was bouncing up and down with excitement when I happened to see, at the weekend, the news of the first run of the new Peppercorn Class locomotive, Tornado.
The first steam engine built to run on the UK mainline for almost 50 years has made a successful trial run.

Tornado was funded and assembled by steam enthusiasts in Darlington in an 18-year project costing £3m.

The 72ft (22 metre) engine is based on the Peppercorn A1 locomotive, which British Railways withdrew from service in the 1960s.

The loco made its first public move under its own steam on Friday morning in front of a crowd of onlookers.

Once fully running and certified it will be used to haul charter trains operating on Network Rail.

And now, via the Libertarian Alliance blog, here are a couple of videos of the Tornado in action...





Beautiful: absolutely beautiful. One of these days, I shall ride in a carriage behind that engine. In the meantime, perhaps I should pay another trip to the Bluebell Railway...